A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF REGISTERING 
VOTERS AND OF CANVASSING THE 
REGISTRATION LISTS 
IN CHICAGO 


REPORT PREPARED BY THE 
CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY 


MARCH, 1923 




PRIOR PUBLICATIONS. 





itett'Se. 


I 1 s'jS'v i 4 


Method of Preparing and Administering the Budget of Cook County, Illinois. 
January, 1911. 


2. Proposed Purchase of Toting Machines by the Board of Election Commissioners 

of the City of Chicago. May, 1911. (Out cf Print.) 

3. Street Pavement Laid in the City of Chicago: An Inquiry Into Paving Materials, 

Methods and Results. June, 1911. (Out of Print.) 

4. Electrolysis of Water Pipes in the City of Chicago. July, 1911. (Out of Print.) 


а. 

б . 

7. 

8 . 


Administration of the Office of Recorder of Cook County, Illinois. September, 
1911. (Out of Print.) 

A Plea for Publicity in the Office of County Treasurer. October, 1911. (Out of 
Print.) 

Repairing Asphalt Pavement: Work Done for the City of Chicago Under Con¬ 
tract of 1911. October, 1911. (Out of Print.) 

The Municipal Court Acts: Two Related Propositions Upon Which the Voters 
of Chicago Will be Asked to Pass Judgment at the Election of November 7—- 
Vote No. October 31, 1911. (Out of Print.) 


9. The Water Works System of the City of Chicago. By Dabney H. Maury. De¬ 
cember, 1911. (Out of Print.) 

10. Bureau of Street; Civil Service Commission; and Special Assessment Account¬ 

ing System of the City of Chicago. December, 1911. (Out of Print.) 

11. Administration of the Office of Coroner of Cook County, Illinois. December, 

1911. 

12. Administration of the Office of Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. December, 1911. 

13. Administration of the Office of Clerk of the Circuit Court and of the Office of 

Clerk of the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois. December, 1911. 

14. The Judges and the County Fee Offices. December 19, 1911. (Out of Print.) 

15. General Summary and Conclusions of Report on the Park Governments of. 

Chicago. December, 1911. 

16. The Park Governments of Chicago: An Inquiry Into Their Organization and 

Methods of Administration. December, 1911. 

17. Offices of the Clerks of the Circuit and Superior Courts: A Supplemental Inquiry 

Into Their Organization and Methods of Administration. November, 1912. 

18. Administration of the Office of the Clerk of the County Court of Cook County, 

Illinois. November, 1912. (Out of Print.) 

19. Office of Sheriff ©f Cook County, Illinois: A Supplemental Inquiry Into Its' 

Organization and Methods of Administration. November, 1912. 

20. Growing Cost of Elections in Chicago and Cook County. December 30, 1912, 

21. The Voting Machine Contract. A Protest Against Its Recognition In Any 

Form by the City Council of the City of Chicago. January 1, 1913. 

• 

22. The Office of the County Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois. An Inquiry Into the 

Administration of Its Finances with Special Reference to the Question of 
Interest on Public Funds. November, 1913. 


23. The Nineteen Local Governments in Chicago. December, 1913. (Out of Print.) 


(Continued on inside back cover) 



A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF REGISTERING 
VOTERS AND OF CANVASSING THE 
REGISTRATION LISTS 
IN CHICAGO 


REPORT PREPARED BY THE 
CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY 
515 PLYMOUTH COURT 




CHICAGO BUREAU 

OF 

PUBLIC EFFICIENCY 


ORGANIZED IN AUGUST 1910 


TRUSTEES 


Julius Rosen wald, Chairman 
Alfred L. Baker, Treasurer 


Onward Bates 
Victor Elting 
Walter L. Fisher 


F. B. Johnstone 
Allen B. Pond 
George G. Tunell 


Harris S. Keeler, Director 



* / 






TABLE OF CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION . 5 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 7 

TEXT OF REPORT. 11 

The Present Chicago System. 12 

Chicago System Needlessly Troublesome to Voters. 14 

Chicago System Ineffective in Preventing Fraud. 15 

Chicago System Wasteful of Taxpayers’ Money. 16 

Central Registration Act of 1917. 21 

Registration Procedure in Other Cities. 21 

Plan Proposed by Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency. 26 

Permanent Registration . 26 

Supplementary and Intermediate Registrations. 27 

Individual Registrars Instead of Boards of Registry. 30 

Individual Registration Forms Recommended. 30 

Police Canvass of Voting Lists Recommended. 35 

Supplemental Investigations by Election Commissioners.. 37 

Revision of Register . 37 

Suggested Changes in Qualifications of Judges of Election.... 37 

CALENDAR OF ELECTION EVENTS IN CHICAGO FOR A 

PERIOD OF YEARS . 39 




























































INTRODUCTION 


Previous reports of the Chicago Bureau of Public Effi¬ 
ciency (1912 and 1921) have directed attention to the 
enormous and ever-increasing cost of elections in Chi¬ 
cago and Cook County, and have emphasized the need for 
reducing the number of elections and primaries and for 
a more satisfactory and economical system of register¬ 
ing voters. 


The General Assembly in 1919 and 1921 passed several 
laws, which were sponsored by a conference of civic or¬ 
ganizations, including the Bureau, and which have 
effected important changes with respect to elections. The 
fifty-ward law abolishes elections of aldermen in even- 
numbered years and elections of city clerk and city treas- 
surer in alternate odd-numbered years beginning in 1925. 
The registrations preceding these elections are of course 
automatically dispensed with. The law for the non¬ 
partisan election of aldermen eliminates entirely one 
registration in those odd-numbered years in which there 
is no mayoralty election. The non-partisan law in prac¬ 
tice also operates to eliminate one election day in a 
large part of the city in those odd-numbered years in 
which there is no mayoralty election. The 1921 law 
changing the date of the election of small park district 
commissioners from April to February is producing cer¬ 
tain minor economies. 


Although during the past three years these laws have 
not been fully operative, they have resulted in savings 
in excess of $500,000, and during each succeeding four- 
year period they will mean a further saving of at least 
$1,100,000. It is due in part to this legislation that elec- 


6 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


tion expenses were approximately $350,000 less in 1922 
than in 1920. 

Thus considerable progress has been made in reducing 
the number of primaries and elections with their accom¬ 
panying registrations. In fact, except for separate judi¬ 
cial elections, the dates of which it is either impossible 
or impractical to change without constitutional amend¬ 
ment, Chicago is now on a one-election-a-year basis. 

On the other hand, nothing whatever has been accom¬ 
plished in improving registration methods or in reduc¬ 
ing the expense of registration per precinct in connection 
with those primaries and elections which still remain. 
Registration expense makes up by far the greater part of 
the cost of primaries and elections. 

In its report on the High Cost of Elections, issued in 
1921, the Bureau proposed various changes in the laws 
governing registrations, particularly with a view to re¬ 
ducing the number of registration days. Further study 
of the subject has led to the conclusion that certain other 
important changes in registration procedure and methods 
are desirable. Such changes would result in substantial 
economies and would tend to minimize fraudulent vot¬ 
ing. They are discussed in the accompanying report, in 
the preparation of which Mr. George C. Sikes has been 
especially engaged. 

Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, 
Harris S. Keeler, 

Director. 


March, 1923. 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 


The present system of registering voters in Chicago 
and of canvassing the registration lists requires a com¬ 
plete new registration of all voters every two years; pro¬ 
vides for intermediate registrations by precincts prior 
to each primary and each election (except exclusively ju¬ 
dicial elections and certain special elections); and calls 
for a canvass by the precinct clerks of election after each 
registration. This system involves unnecessary annoyance 
and inconvenience to voters. It is ineffective in prevent¬ 
ing fraud and affords opportunity for political manipu¬ 
lation and trickery. It results in a large waste of public 
funds. 

The primary purpose of registration is to prevent 
fraud. The best system is one that enables qualified vot¬ 
ers to get their names on the lists and to keep them there 
with the least inconvenience; that provides effectively for 
striking from the lists prior to each election the names 
of persons who are not entitled to vote, and who other¬ 
wise may be impersonated by fraudulent voters; and that 
establishes a procedure which will produce the results 
sought at a minimum cost to the public. 

Other cities, notably New York, Boston, Detroit, Mil¬ 
waukee, Omaha and Portland (Ore.), have adopted meth¬ 
ods which, in one respect or another, are superior to 
those in use in this city. Chicago should revise its reg¬ 
istration procedure for the twofold purpose of securing 
better results and of eliminating needless expense. It 
should adopt all those features which, as shown by the 
combined experience of other places, make for the con¬ 
venience of the voters, for the prevention of fraud, and 

for economv in administration. 

•/ 

To that end the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 
recommends: 

1. That a system of permanent registration be estab¬ 
lished, subject to authority in the Election Commission- 


8 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


ers to order complete new registrations, when, if ever, 
that may become desirable. To inaugurate this change 
there should be a complete new registration of all voters 
by precincts prior to the November election of 1924. 
Thereafter, a voter once registered should he required to 
re-register only in the event that he changes his place of 
residence. Permanent registration, with authority in 
local public officials thus to order a complete new regis¬ 
tration, would provide a flexible system embodying all 
the advantages of the plan now in use. And the proposed 
change would save both voters’ time and taxpayers’ 
money. Permanent registration coupled with the other 
features of the plan proposed in this report would result 
in saving approximately $250,000 a year. 

2. That new voters and voters who move he permitted 
to register at the office of the Election Commissioners 
in the city hall at any time, except for a period of 29 
days prior to each election or primary, when the register 
would he closed; and also that the Election Commission¬ 
ers he authorized in their discretion to designate such 
other places of registration throughout the city as they 
may consider necessary or desirable prior to any election 
or primary, and to prescribe the time or times (not less 
than 29 days before any such election or primary) during 
which such places shall he open. This plan could he made 
exceedingly flexible in operation so as to provide ade¬ 
quately for the convenience of the number of voters who, 
experience would indicate, might wish to register prior to 
different elections. The number of such places of regis¬ 
tration might range from one in the city hall to one in 
every voting precinct, depending upon the exigencies of 
each particular situation. 

3. That hoards of registry be abolished and that the 
work of registering voters both at the city hall and in 
outlying places of registration he conducted by individual 
registrars; that any statutory provision fixing the num- 


Proposed System of Registration 


9 


ber of persons to be employed in registering voters be 
dispensed with; and that the Election Commissioners be 
authorized to assign to each outlying place of registra¬ 
tion as many registrars as may be required promptly to 
register voters. The experience of Boston, Detroit and 
Omaha indicates that under ordinary circumstances not 
more than two registrars per place of registration would 
be required. This change would effect a substantial sav¬ 
ing in expense. 

4. That the information required by law concerning 
each voter be entered upon a separate sheet or form in¬ 
stead of in a book as at present ; that such forms be filled 
out in duplicate, each copy to be signed by the voter; and 
that such forms be then assembled and bound by precincts 
in locked binders. One set of forms should be kept at 
all times in the office of the Commissioners; the other 
would be sent to the respective precincts on election days, 
where it could be consulted in case a voter’s right to vote 
were questioned. Precinct election officials should also be 
provided with accurate, printed lists against which to 
check the names of voters as they now check them against 
the book registers. The experience of other cities, such 
as Boston, Milwaukee, Omaha, Los Angeles and Port¬ 
land, demonstrates that accuracy in a register is not de¬ 
pendent upon the use of books, and the Bureau believes 
that the individual-form type of register here proposed 
is less subject to fraudulent manipulation and political 
trickery than are the present books. 

5. That each voter be required to sign his name on 
election day, such signature to be compared with his sig¬ 
nature on the register in case his right to vote is ques¬ 
tioned. The requirement that a voter sign his name be¬ 
fore securing his ballot would tend to deter attempts at 
fraud by impersonation. 

6. That prior to each election and each primary (ex¬ 
cept judicial and special elections) police patrolmen be 


10 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

required by law to canvass the registration lists and to 
report as to each name thereon. In New York, Boston, 
Detroit and Milwaukee the police do the canvassing with 
satisfactory results. The effectiveness of any system of 
registration in preventing fraud depends largely upon the 
thoroughness and honesty with which the voting lists are 
canvassed and names improperly thereon are removed. 
One of the essential elements of an effective canvass is 
that it shall be made by a responsible person, who can 
afterward be located and called to account if the work 
is dishonestly or improperly done. The police patrolman 
is such a person. No such degree of intelligence and re¬ 
sponsibility as is found in the police can be expected of 
a large corps of temporary employes recruited for a few 
days of canvassing. The experience of other cities shows 
that the work of canvassing does not impose any undue 
burden upon the police or interfere with their other work. 
The police canvass should not only be more effective but 
it would save considerable expense. 

7. That the Election Commissioners be given author¬ 
ity to investigate election frauds and to make such in¬ 
quiries concerning the integrity of the registration lists 
as may be found necessary to insure diligence on the part 
of the police and to keep the lists free of fraudulent 
names. For the purpose of such investigations and in¬ 
quiries the Commissioners should be provided with ade¬ 
quate assistance under the direction of a competent 
supervisory head. 

8. That provision be made for sending notices to per¬ 
sons registered whose residence or other qualifications 
may be questioned; that such persons be given an oppor¬ 
tunity to re-afhrm their right to vote, either at the city 
hall or at local places of registration; and that the Elec¬ 
tion Commissioners be granted authority, where the facts 
justify, either to strike off the names of such persons, or 
to subject them to challenge in case they attempt to vote. 


A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF REGISTERING VOTERS 
AND OF CANVASSING THE REGISTRATION 

LISTS IN CHICAGO 


The present system of registering voters in Chicago 
and of canvassing the registration lists has always had 
serious shortcomings, but during the last decade it has 
become more and more burdensome, especially in the 
matter of expense. The salaries of judges and clerks 
and the rent of polling places for registration purposes 
now range from $140,000' per year, in those years when 
there are only aldermanic elections, to $340,000 per year 
in presidential election years; and the indirect expenses 
of central office administration make the total expendi¬ 
tures for registrations substantially greater. 

Several elements have contributed to the rapidly in¬ 
creasing cost. The expense of registration depends prin¬ 
cipally upon the number of precinct judges and clerks 
employed and upon the number of registration days. 
Growth of population and the extension of suffrage to 
women have greatly increased the number of voters. 
More voters mean more precinct polling places and con¬ 
sequently more judges and clerks of election. The num¬ 
ber of precincts increased from 1,329 in 1912 to 2,051 in 
1922. Under the direct primary law, as construed by the 
courts, every primary is an “election’’ and must be pre¬ 
ceded by a registration. This ruling practically doubles 
the former number of registration days. 

Many other cities confronted by similar conditions have 
improved their systems and methods of registering vot¬ 
ers, but Chicago has done nothing in this regard. 



12 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

Admittedly Chicago now has too many precinct reg¬ 
istration days. And registration costs are altogether too 
high when compared with the expense of conducting elec¬ 
tions. A registration costs at least 50 per cent more than 
the election which it precedes. 

Chicago needs to change the present system for the 
twofold purpose of securing better results and of elim¬ 
inating needless expense by reducing the number of reg¬ 
istration days and simplifying procedure. 

THE PRESENT CHICAGO SYSTEM 

The primary purpose of registration is to prevent 
fraud. The best system is one that enables qualified vot¬ 
ers to get their names on the lists and to keep them there 
with the least inconvenience; that provides effectively for 
striking from the lists prior to each election the names 
of persons who are not qualified to vote, and who other¬ 
wise may be impersonated by fraudulent voters on elec¬ 
tion day; and that establishes a procedure which will 
produce the results sought at a minimum cost to the pub¬ 
lic. 

The present system in Chicago is the antithesis of an 
effective and economical one. A complete new registra¬ 
tion by precincts is now required every two years, prior 
to the November election for national, state and county 
officers. During the interim between such general regis¬ 
trations, an intermediate registration, also by precincts, 
for the purpose of revising the registers, is held prior 
to each primary and election, except exclusively judicial 
elections and certain special elections. No citizen may 
vote, except at certain special and judicial elections, un¬ 
less on one of such regular or intermediate registration 
days he or she has registered in person at the regular 
polling place of the precinct wherein he or she is entitled 
to vote. The only other exception to this rule is made in 
the case of persons who, because of sickness or absence 


Proposed System of Registration 


13 


from the city on general registration days, are permitted 
to register under certain limitations at the office of the 
Board of Election Commissioners. 

Prior to each biennial November election there are two 
registration days—the Saturday of the fifth week before 
election and the Tuesday three weeks before election. 
Prior to any other election or primary there is hut one 
day of registration—the Tuesday three weeks before such 
election or primary. 

The three judges of election of each voting precinct 
constitute the board of registry for the precinct. On each 
registration day they (together with the two precinct 
clerks of election) are in session at the regular precinct 
polling place from eight o’clock in the morning until nine 
o’clock in the evening. With each complete new registra¬ 
tion, they prepare two registers which are used in the 
polling place on primary and election days throughout 
the succeeding two-year period. Each register contains 
on a single line answers to the questions required by law 
to be answered by prospective voters. Each register is 
revised at intermediate registrations by the addition and 
erasure of names. A third register, called the public reg¬ 
ister, is also still made, although the law requiring it 
appears to have been repealed in 1919. It contains only 
the names and addresses of voters and is kept in the poll¬ 
ing place—open to public inspection—between registra¬ 
tion day and election day. 

On the Wednesday and Thursday following the second 
registration day prior to the biennial November elections, 
and also following each intermediate registration, the two 
clerks of election, having prepared so-called “verifica¬ 
tion” lists of voters arranged according to street and 
number, are supposed—the law so requires—to make a 
house-to-house canvass of each precinct, to ascertain 
whether persons registered reside at the addresses given. 
For this work the law prescribes compensation of $5 to 



14 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

each clerk. If a person registered is found not to reside 
at the address given, the law prescribes that a notice, 
commonly called a “ suspect notice/’ be left at the ad¬ 
dress and also that prior to noon of Friday a similar no¬ 
tice be mailed to such person. This notice directs the per¬ 
son to whom it is sent to appear before the board of reg¬ 
istry on the following Saturday evening between six and 
ten o’clock, to show cause why his or her name should 
not be stricken from the register. The clerks of election 
are also required to file with the Election Commissioners 
a list of persons to whom such notices are sent. 

As a matter of practice, a house-to-house canvass such 
as the law contemplates is seldom, if ever, made. Where 
the clerks are honest and are informed, or are suspicious, 
that a voter does not actually live at the address shown 
on the list, they send a suspect notice. Otherwise names 
remain on the list whether or not they are properly 
there. 

On the Saturday evening following the canvass, the 
judges and clerks meet again from six to ten o’clock at 
the precinct polling place, where persons who have re¬ 
ceived suspect notices may appear and establish their 
right to vote. If they fail to do so, their names are 
stricken from the register subject to the right to appeal 
to the Election Commissioners in certain cases. 

CHICAGO SYSTEM NEEDLESSLY TROUBLESOME TO VOTERS 

The Chicago system is needlessly troublesome to the 
voter. Regardless of how long he may continue to reside 
at the same address, he must re-register every two years. 
And to do so he must go to the precinct polling place on 
one of the infrequent specified dates set apart for such 
purpose. If he changes his residence he must re-register 
at the polling place in his new precinct on a specific day 
prior to the election at which he desires to vote. No op- 


15 


Proposed System of Registration 

portnnity is afforded to register at any other time or 
place. If, because of sickness, absence from the city, 
oversight, or any other reason, he fails so to register on 
one of the dates prescribed, he loses his right to vote. 
This discourages voting. A considerable number of vot¬ 
ers now fail to cast their ballots because of inability to 
register anew at specific times as required by the present 
law. 


CHICAGO SYSTEM INEFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING FRAUD 

The effectiveness of any system of registration in pre¬ 
venting fraud depends largely upon the thoroughness 
with which the registration lists are canvassed and names 
improperly thereon are removed. The present practice 
in Chicago is absurd. It is ridiculous to expect two per¬ 
sons in each precinct—men or women—to go from house 
to house and verify in a day or two, for $5 each, the resi¬ 
dence of each of 400 or more voters in such precinct. Such 
verification is in fact seldom, if ever, had. 

There is nothing thorough or systematic about the can¬ 
vass as now made. Suspect notices are predicated upon 
casual inquiry and information. No report is required 
of the clerks as to the voters whom presumably they lo¬ 
cate at the addresses given. Under the prevailing prac¬ 
tice, even where the clerks are honest, the names of many 
persons not entitled to vote remain on the lists. And, 
if the clerks are dishonest, they may pave the way for 
fraudulent voting on election day by deliberately failing 
to report the names of persons known to them to have 
fraudulently registered, and of persons who were once 
properly registered but who, because of death, removal, 
or otherwise, are no longer voters. The result is that the 
lists are not purged of “dead” names and fraudulent 
voting, by persons who impersonate those whose names 
remain improperly on the register, reaches considerable 
proportions in some elections. 


16 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

On the other hand, it is not uncommon for clerks in 
collusion and as a political trick to send, or to claim that 
they send, suspect notices to persons who are entitled to 
vote. If the person thus marked for a notice does not 
appear at the polling place on the Saturday evening 
named and establish his right to vote, his name is erased 
from the register and he cannot vote at the following pri¬ 
mary or election. This is true even though he failed to 
receive a notice. And failure to receive a notice may be 
due to none having been sent, to deliberate misdirection, 
to delayed delivery of mail, or to other reasons. 

CHICAGO SYSTEM WASTEFUL OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY 

The registration system in Chicago, aside from being 
unnecessarily troublesome to the voter and ineffective in 
preventing fraud, costs too much. Not only is no oppor¬ 
tunity given a voter to register at some central place, 
such as the city hall, at a time convenient for him but 
there are too many registrations by precincts. In Chi¬ 
cago, registration only at the city hall would be out of 
the question. Voters should be given reasonable oppor¬ 
tunity from time to time to register at other convenient 
locations throughout the city. Occasionally, perhaps, all 
the precinct polling places should be thrown open for 
registration purposes. But registration by precincts be¬ 
fore practically every primary or election is unnecessary 
and results in a large waste of public funds. 

A registration costs more than the primary or election 
which it precedes. Salaries of precinct judges and clerks 
of election and the rent of polling places constitute the 
principal items of expense. For a general registration 
they are $98 per precinct, or a total of $201,096 for the 
2,052 precincts within the city. For an intermediate reg¬ 
istration they are $68 per precinct, or a total of $139,536. 
The unit cost per precinct is less for an intermediate 
registration because there is but one day set apart for 


Proposed System of Registration 


17 


it. In addition to these direct charges there are general 
costs for printing, supplies, clerical work at the central 
office, and other overhead expense. Definite figures as 
to these general costs are not available, hut a conserva¬ 
tive estimate places them at not less than $50,000 for a 
general registration and $40,000 for an intermediate reg¬ 
istration. Thus the present total expense of a general 
registration is approximately $250,000; that of an inter¬ 
mediate registration, $180,000. 

The following tabular statement shows the cost in de¬ 
tail per precinct for both a general and an intermediate 
registration. The cost of the former is based upon the 
pay of judges and clerks and the rental of polling places 
for two registration days; that of the latter, for only one 
registration day. 

STATEMENT SHOWING COST PER PRECINCT FOR GENERAL AND 

INTERMEDIATE REGISTRATIONS 



General 

Intermediate 

Item 

Registration 

Registration 

Salaries of 3 judges and 2 clerks at $5 a day each 



Registration. 

$50 

$25 

Revision Night. 

25 

25 

Canvass by Clerks. 

Rent of Polling Places at $5 a day and S3 for 

10 

10 

Revision Night. 

13 

8 

Total direct cost per precinct. 

$98 

$68 

Cost of above items for 2,052 precincts. 

General expense for printing, supplies, clerical 

$201,096 

$139,536 

assistance, etc. (estimated). 

50,000 

40,000 

Total cost of Registration. 

$251,096 

$179,536 


The following table shows (1) the number of voters 
registered from October, 1916, to date; (2) the approxi¬ 
mate total cost of each registration; (3) the average 
number of voters registered per precinct; and (4) the 
average cost of registration per person. 




















18 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF VOTERS REGISTERED IN CHICAGO FROM 
OCTOBER, 1916, TO DATE; APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST OF EACH 
REGISTRATION; AVERAGE NUMBER OF VOTERS REGISTERED PER 
PRECINCT; AND AVERAGE COST OF REGISTRATION PER PERSON. 


Registration 

Total 
Number 
of Voters 
Regis¬ 
tered 

Approxi¬ 
mate Total 
Cost of 
Regis¬ 
tration 

Number 

of 

Precincts 

Average 
Number 
Regis¬ 
tered per 
Precinct 

Average 
Cost of 
Registra¬ 
tion per 
Person 

October, 1916, Gen¬ 
eral New Registra¬ 
tion . 

815,014 

$260,000 

2168 

375.9 

$ .31 

February, 1917, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

19,592 

190,000 

2203 

8.8 

9.69 

March, 1917, for City 
Election. 

18,157 

190,000 

2203 

8.2 

10.46 

January, 1918, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

40,761 

*90,000 

2204 

18.4 

2.20 

March, 1918, for City 
Election. 

127,722 

190,000 

2204 

57.9 

1.48 

August, 1918, for 
General Primaries . 

96,504 

190,000 

2204 

43.7 

1.96 

October, 1918, Gen¬ 
eral New Registra¬ 
tion . 

582,506 

265,000 

2215 

262.9 

.45 

February, 1919, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

114,784 

190,000 

2214 

51.8 

1.65 

March, 1919, for City 
Election. 

133,836 

190,000 

2214 

60.4 

1.41 

August, 1919, for 
Constitutional Con¬ 
vention Primaries. 

36,949 

190,000 

2190 

16.8 

5.14 

October, 1919, for 
Constitutional Con¬ 
vention Election . . 

44,454 

190,000 

2190 

20.2 

4.27 

February, 1920, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

44,137 

190,000 

2190 

20.1 

4.30 

March, 1920, for 
Presidential Pri¬ 
maries . 

69,234 

190,000 

2190 

31.6 

2.74 

August, 1920, for 
General Primaries . 

129,685 

190,000 

2210 

58.6 

1.46 

October, 1920, Gen¬ 
eral New Registra¬ 
tion . 

900,765 

265,000 

2210 

407.5 

.28 

February, 1921, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

27,888 

190,000 

2222 

12.5 

6.81 

March, 1921, for City 
Election. 

14,825 

190,000 

2222 

6.6 

12.81 

March, 1922, for Gen¬ 
eral Primaries. 

151,991 

190,000 

2222 

68.4 

1.25 

October, 1922, Gen¬ 
eral New Registra¬ 
tion . 

812,987 

250,000 

2051 

396.3 

.30 

February, 1923, for 
City Primaries. .. . 

72,408 

180,000 

2052 

35.2 

2.48 

March, 1923, for 
City Election. 

69,362 

180,000 

2052 

33.8 

2.59 


*Central registration act of 1917 in operation at this registration. 



























Proposed System of Registration 19 

The Bureau, as indicated later in this report, believes 
that permanent registration would be better than a com¬ 
plete new registration either every two years or after 
longer fixed intervals. Conceding, however, for the sake 
of argument, that this point may be debatable, there can 
be no question about so many intermediate registrations 
by precincts constituting a needless waste. During the six 
years beginning with 1917 there were 15 intermediate 
registrations, which cost the taxpayers approximately 
$2,750,000. The relatively small number of voters who 
registered on those occasions could have been fully, and 
in many cases more conveniently, accommodated under 
a well devised plan of central and local registration at a 
saving of at least $2,100,000. 

The three general registrations in October of 1918, 
1920 and 1922, cost approximately $780,000. If the pres¬ 
ent requirement that all voters re-register every two 
years had not been in effect and Chicago had been operat¬ 
ing under a central registration law at least $725,000 of 
this amount might have been saved. Thus the present 
system has resulted in the waste of approximately $2,- 
825,000 during the past six years. 

The foregoing estimates ($2,100,000 and $725,000) 
assume that the registration lists would have been can¬ 
vassed by the police instead of by precinct clerks of elec¬ 
tion. The cost of canvassing by these clerks during the 
six-year period was approximately $395,000. As pointed 
out in the preceding pages of this report, canvassing by 
clerks of election under present conditions is of little 
value. 

An examination of the figures in the foregoing table 
showing the number of persons registered and the cost 
of registration per person indicates clearly the needless 
expense involved. But the wastefulness of the present 
system is particularly well illustrated by the registra¬ 
tions required for the 1923 mayoralty primary and elec¬ 
tion. 

There was a complete new registration in October, 


20 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

1922. Yet in February and March, 1923, intermediate 
registrations were held. During the period from October 
to March relatively few voters changed their residences. 
Under these circumstances the number desiring to reg¬ 
ister was comparatively small, although because of the 
widespread interest in the mayoralty election it was 
greater than usual on intermediate registration days. 
Only 72,408 names were added to the list on February 6 
and only 69,362 on March 13. The average number regis¬ 
tered per precinct for both days was but 69, and the cost 
per person registered was about $2.50. The total expense 
incident to these two registrations was approximately 
$360,000, of which at least $260,000 could have been saved 
by a well planned system. 

On the basis of the present election schedule, savings 
in future years will not aggregate the amounts that might 
have been saved in the past. This is due largely to the 
fact that the fifty-ward law and the non-partisan election 
law for aldermen have reduced the number of primaries 
and elections for which registrations must be held. How¬ 
ever, during a cycle of four years (in which there would 
occur two elections in November for national, state and 
county officers, two aldermanic elections and one may¬ 
oralty election) a system of permanent registration with 
adequate provision for revision of the register, through 
supplemental registration both at the city hall and at 
convenient local points, and through an effective canvass 
to remove “dead” names, should save at least $1,000,000, 
or an average of $250,000 each year. This estimate, 
which the Bureau believes is conservative, is based upon 
the assumption that prior to each election or primary 
(except judicial or special elections) one place of regis¬ 
tration for each five voting precincts would be opened for 
one day, and that an average of two registrars would be 
assigned to each place of registration. The expense of 
central office registration and investigation of registra¬ 
tion lists is included at $75,000 a year. The estimate also 


Proposed System of Registration 


21 


assumes police canvassing. Even larger savings might be 
possible after voters had become accustomed to central 
registration. 


CENTRAL REGISTRATION ACT OF 1917 

The wastefulness of the present procedure has long 
been recognized by election officials and in 1917 a so- 
called central registration act was passed by the legisla¬ 
ture. This law was later declared invalid by the courts 
because of certain informalities in connection with its 
passage. Its merits were not involved in the decision. 
It provided for a complete new registration every two 
years; for intermediate registrations at which from five 
to ten precincts were to be grouped and served by a single 
board of five members; for central registration through¬ 
out the year at the office of the Election Commissioners; 
for canvass as at present by the precinct clerks of elec¬ 
tion; and for revision on the basis of one board of five 
members for not less than five precincts. 

This law was in operation at the registration prior to 
the city primary of 1918, when the procedure which it 
prescribed was found so unsatisfactory and difficult that 
it was characterized as unworkable. This test indicated 
certain details of procedure to be avoided in any future 
law. But aside from that, the act is of interest as 
indicating the practical possibilities of curtailing the 
number of local registration places and thus of reducing 
registration expenses. 

REGISTRATION PROCEDURE IN OTHER CITIES 

Several other cities have adopted methods of registra¬ 
tion and of canvassing which are superior to those em¬ 
ployed in Chicago. 

Boston has had permanent registration for many 
years. New voters are registered and the names of vot¬ 
ers who move from one part of the city to another are 
transferred on the registry lists by registrars at the cen- 


22 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

tral office of the election board throughout the year and 
at an office in each ward opened for such purpose on cer¬ 
tain designated days. Two registrars are assigned to 
each ward office on such occasions. The police patrol¬ 
men verify the registration lists annually and make spe¬ 
cial investigations on request of the election board. The 
official register is in book form and is continuous from 
year to year. There is but one copy and this is never 
rewritten. It is kept at the central office. Accurate, 
printed lists of voters in each precinct are supplied for 
the use of precinct officials on election day. 

Milwaukee adopted permanent registration more than 
ten years ago. New voters may register at any time, 
but only at the city hall. Voters who move may have 
their names transferred on the lists upon application at 
the central office, either in person or by mail. Police 
patrolmen verify the registration lists by a general 
house-to-house canvass prior to each election and make 
special inquiries upon request of the election officials. 
Each voter is registered on a separate card, only one 
copy being made. This card is signed by the voter and is 
sent to his polling place on election day so that it may 
be consulted and his signature verified in case of chal¬ 
lenge. Accurate, printed lists are supplied for the use 
of precinct officials in checking the names of voters on 
election day. 

Omaha. Permanent registration has also been in ef¬ 
fect in Omaha for about ten years. New voters are reg¬ 
istered and voters who move are re-registered largely 
at the central office of the Election Commissioner, al¬ 
though usually prior to important elections two or three 
other places of registration are provided in remote parts 
of the city. The methods employed in verifying the reg¬ 
istration lists are largely within the discretion of the com¬ 
missioner. He is required by law to verify them prior to 
each election and may do so at other times. The work of 
verification is done by assistants whom he appoints. The 


Proposed System of Registration 23 

register is prepared in duplicate on loose-leaf forms which 
are bound in locked binders. Each page contains data, re¬ 
lating to but one voter. Both the original and the dupli¬ 
cate are signed by the voter. One set of these forms is 
retained permanently in the office of the commissioner; 
the other is sent on election day to the respective poll¬ 
ing places for consultation in case a voter is challenged. 
Additional unsigned copies of the register are also pro¬ 
vided for the use of precinct officials on election day. 

Detroit has a complete new registration by precincts 
every four years. Formerly intermediate registrations 
w r ere also by precincts as in Chicago, but the Detroit 
city council, acting under authority conferred by law, 
has recently abolished that plan and the intermediate 
registration of new voters and of voters who move is 
now conducted only at the city hall. The register is in 
book form, only one copy being made. When there is a 
general new registration three registrars are assigned to 
each precinct. The registration lists are verified by the 
police patrolmen upon request of the election board. 

New York has a general election in November of each 
year and prior to each general election there is a com¬ 
plete new registration of all voters. There is no regis¬ 
tration prior to the primary, but during the year voters 
may “enroll” for the primary by making application at 
one of the five borough offices. The registration lists 
are canvassed twice annually by the police patrolmen— 
once before the election and again before the primary of 
the next year. Voters are registered in books which are 
prepared in quadruplicate, one copy being made by each 
of the four inspectors of election who act as registrars. 
One of the registers is signed by the voter at the time of 
his registration. When the voter seeks to vote on elec¬ 
tion day he is required to sign a second copy of the reg¬ 
ister and this signature is then compared with the one 
which he signed at the time of registration. 

Portland (Ore.) has permanent registration subject 


24 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

to the qualification that if a voter fails to vote during a 
biennium his name is removed from the list. Registra¬ 
tion is conducted only at the office of the county clerk. 
Voters are registered on cards from which typewritten 
precinct lists are prepared for the use of precinct offi¬ 
cials on election day. 


An examination of the various methods employed in 
these other cities discloses that none of them has com¬ 
bined the best that is to be found in all. If Chicago is 
to revise its registration laws it should seek to profit by 
the experience of other places and to incorporate in any 
new system all those features which make for the con¬ 
venience of the voter, for the prevention of fraud, and 
for economy in administration. 

The important matters to be considered are: 

1. Permanent registration vs. periodic complete 
new registrations by precincts. 

2. How best to handle supplemental or interme¬ 
diate registrations. 

3. By whom should the work of registration be 
performed—boards of registry consisting of five 
members as in Chicago or by a smaller number of 
clerks acting as registrars. 

4. The form of the register—books or individ¬ 
ual registration blanks. Data to be entered on reg¬ 
ister—signature, age or other items of personal de¬ 
scription. 

5. The best method of canvassing the registra¬ 
tion lists so as to remove names improperly thereon. 

Boston, Milwaukee, Omaha and Portland have perma¬ 
nent registration; a voter having once registered is re¬ 
lieved of the necessity of re-registering while he contin¬ 
ues to reside at the same address. This is subject to the 
qualification already noted as to Portland. Each of these 
cities affords new voters and voters who move an op¬ 
portunity to register or re-register at the central office 



Proposed System of Registration 


25 


of the election officials during the entire year. In Bos¬ 
ton and Omaha a limited number of other places of reg¬ 
istration throughout the city are also established on cer¬ 
tain designated days prior to important elections. De¬ 
troit with its four-year general new registration provides 
for intermediate registration only at the city hall. And 
even New York with its annual general new registration 
provides for supplemental 1 6 enrollments ” for party pri¬ 
maries only at the five borough offices. 

Except in New York, the work of registering voters is 
not performed by judges and clerks of election. Clerks, 
usually designated ‘ ‘ registrars,’’ serve the voters both at 
the central office and at outlying places of registration. 
The number assigned varies with the volume of registra¬ 
tion. In outlying places usually not to exceed two reg¬ 
istrars are assigned for intermediate registrations. De¬ 
troit employs three registrars at the time of its quad¬ 
rennial new registration. Even in New York on general 
registration days only four registrars per precinct are 
employed—one less than in Chicago. The employment 
of four in New York is explained perhaps by the fact that 
four copies of the register are prepared. 

New York and Detroit still adhere to “book” regis¬ 
ters which are used in the polling places on election 
days. Boston has a central office book register which is 
not taken to the polling places. Printed lists are used by 
precinct election officials. Milwaukee, Omaha, Portland 
and Los Angeles have abandoned books and are using 
cards or loose-leaf registers, each card or leaf contain¬ 
ing information relating to but one voter. For the use 
of precinct officials on election days printed or typewrit¬ 
ten lists, or duplicate cards, are provided in each of this 
latter group of cities. In Milwaukee, Omaha and Los 
Angeles the registration cards are also sent to the poll¬ 
ing places for use in case voters are challenged. 

New York, Boston, Milwaukee, Omaha, Los Angeles 
and Portland each requires the signature of the voter at 


26 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

the time of registration and, except in Boston and Port¬ 
land, lie is required to sign his name again when he seeks 
to vote. In most cases, however, the signatures are com¬ 
pared and verified only in case a person’s right to vote 
is questioned. As a further aid to identification some 
cities also include on the register certain items of per¬ 
sonal description, such as business or occupation, age 
(or over 21), sex, approximate height and weight and 
other special means of identification. 

New York, Boston, Detroit and Milwaukee each re¬ 
quires its registration lists to be canvassed by its police 
force. Los Angeles .and Portland make no canvass. 
Omaha checks its lists in such manner as the commis¬ 
sioner thinks necessary; field canvassing is handled 
through assistants appointed by the commissioner. It 
is exceptional for clerks of election, as in Chicago, to 
make any sort of canvass. 

PLAN PROPOSED BY CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY 

PERMANENT REGISTRATION 

The distinction between “permanent” and “central” 
registration should be kept clearly in mind. The two fea¬ 
tures are not necessarily combined in the same system. 
But the “central” plan is usually in effect where regis¬ 
tration is “permanent.” 

Permanent registration implies that when a voter once 
registers, whether in his precinct or elsewhere, he will 
not be required to do so again unless he changes his 
place of residence. “Central” registration on the other 
hand implies the opportunity for voters to register at 
any time at the “central” office of the election board. 
This “central” feature is usually accompanied by provi¬ 
sions for registrations at other points on certain desig¬ 
nated days. Registration may be “permanent” and 
“central” as in Boston, Milwaukee and Omaha, or it 
may be “central” and “periodic” as in Detroit. 

The Bureau believes that complete new registrations 



Proposed System of Registration 27 

by precincts at frequent intervals are unnecessary even 
in Chicago and that this city would do well to follow the 
example of Boston, Milwaukee, Omaha and Portland in 
adopting permanent registration. The integrity of vot¬ 
ing lists depends not so much upon frequent periodic re¬ 
registration of all voters as upon a thorough and honest 
canvass of such lists prior to each election. The cities 
named above all have greater confidence in the honesty 
of their elections than has Chicago with its many new 
registrations. Public convenience and economy would 
be served best by permanent registration. 

However, any law providing for permanent registra¬ 
tion should permit the Election Commissioners to au¬ 
thorize complete new registrations if that should become 
desirable. Such authority might properly be made con¬ 
tingent upon an appropriation therefor first being made 
by the city council. Public opinion could be depended 
upon to bring about a re-registration whenever condi¬ 
tions demanded. 

Permanent registration with authority in local public 
officials thus to order a complete new registration would 
provide a flexible system embodying all the advantages 
of the plan now in use. Such a plan also would result in 
saving both voters’ time and taxpayers’ money. 

SUPPLEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE REGISTRATIONS 

If Chicago adopts permanent registration, the change 
to the new system should be preceded by a complete new 
registration of all voters. Legislation will be required 
before any such change can be made. Assuming that 
necessary legislation were enacted at the present session 
of the General Assembly, such new registration should 
be held shortly before the November election of 1924. 

After the new system had become operative, it would be 
necessary to provide for the registration of new voters 
and of voters who failed to register at the general reg¬ 
istration; also for the re-registration of voters who 


28 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

move. Such persons should be permitted to register at 
the central office of the Election Commissioners in the 
city hall at any time during the year, except for a period 
of 29 days before an election or primary, when the regis¬ 
ter would be closed. 

But provision for central registration alone would not 
meet the requirements of a city like Chicago. Prior to 
each important election or primary, opportunity should 
be given voters to register at other convenient points. 
Occasions might arise when it would he desirable to open 
all precinct polling places for such purpose. Ordinarily, 
however, if registration places were properly selected 
with reference to local community centers and to the 
routes most frequented by voters in going to and from 
their local transportation lines, a comparatively small 
number of such places would he sufficient and would 
serve the convenience of voters even better than many 
of the polling places do at present. After the public had 
become thoroughly accustomed to the new plan possibly 
but one place of registration in each ward, as in Boston, 
would he all that was required. 

The number of local points to he designated for sup¬ 
plemental registrations should he governed by the im¬ 
portance of the succeeding elections and by other condi¬ 
tions indicative of the number of voters who probably 
would wish to register. In the nature of things, there¬ 
fore, the desirable number of such places cannot be rea¬ 
sonably predetermined so as to he satisfactorily pre¬ 
scribed by statutory law. The conditions to he met de¬ 
mand greater flexibility of action than can he definitely 
laid down in a statute. 

The Bureau believes that the practical way in which 
to meet this problem is to empower the Board of Elec¬ 
tion Commissioners in its discretion to designate for reg¬ 
istration purposes prior to any election or primary such 
places (in addition to the central office in the city hall) 
as it may consider necessary or desirable, and to pre- 


Proposed System of Registration 29 

scribe the time or times during which such places shall 
be open. 

The plan here proposed could be made exceedingly 
flexible in operation. The number of such places pro¬ 
vided might range from one in the city hall—the central 
office—to one in every voting precinct. And the Bureau 
believes that under such a plan the individual voter need 
have no fear of his citizenship privileges being unduly 
curtailed. Political organizations are usually anxious to 
have voters registered and election officials in designat¬ 
ing registration places would be likely to provide too 
many rather than too few such places. 

One of the most serious shortcomings of the present 
law is that it leaves the Election Commissioners no dis¬ 
cretion in such matters but requires each precinct poll¬ 
ing place to be opened for registration purposes before 
each primary and election, regardless of whether the 
number of voters to be registered is less than 75,000, as in 
February and in March, 1923, or 900,000 as before the 
presidential election of 1920. 

The central registration act of 1917 (later held in¬ 
valid by the courts) sought to remedy matters by au¬ 
thorizing the combination of not less than five or more 
than ten precincts into registration districts. This 
change might have been something of an improvement if 
other features of the act had been well adapted to the 
plan, but it did not provide the latitude that is de¬ 
sirable to meet widely varying conditions arising from 
time to time. The mistakes of the present law and of 
the act of 1917 should not be repeated in future legisla¬ 
tion on this subject. 

The plan suggested by the Bureau for supplemental 
registrations under a ‘‘permanent’’ system could of 
course be adapted to intermediate registrations under a 
system requiring complete new registration at stated in¬ 
tervals such as two or four years. 


30 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


INDIVIDUAL REGISTRARS INSTEAD OF BOARDS OF REGISTRY 

The work of registering a voter is entirely ministerial 
and is so regarded in nearly all other cities, where clerks 
serve as “registrars.” The voter is usually dealt with 
by a single clerk who asks the necessary questions and 
enters the answers upon the register. The practice in 
Chicago of having registrations conducted by a board of 
three precinct judges assisted by two clerks does not 
seem to rest upon any sound reason. Registrars exer¬ 
cise little if any discretion as to who shall be registered 
and when a doubtful question arises it should properly 
be submitted to superior authority for decision. 

The experience of Boston, Detroit and Omaha indi¬ 
cates that under ordinary circumstances two registrars 
at each place of registration are sufficient and that even 
when a general new registration by precincts is required 
three registrars per precinct can easily do the work. 

If Chicago were to abolish its “boards of registry” 
and adopt the individual registrar plan large sums of 
money could be saved. The Bureau recommends this 
change. 

INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION FORMS RECOMMENDED 

The present method of registering voters in pre-bound 
books will not work to advantage under any plan of 
“central” registration and it is practically out of the 
question to use it where the register is “permanent,” 
particularly if the signature of the voter is to be taken 
and later used for purposes of identification. 

If books were used as a part of a “permanent” plan, 
frequent rewriting would be necessary in order to elim¬ 
inate “dead” names. The result would be that the books 
ultimately used in the polling places on election day 
would constitute nothing more than lists of voters pre¬ 
pared by the clerks of the Election Commissioners either 
from the original entries or from subsequent lists. Thus 


Proposed System of Registration 


31 


the books would cease to be registers in fact and would 
become merely clerically prepared voters lists. As such, 
they would have no greater value than accurately com¬ 
piled printed lists made up from any reliable data in the 
custody of the Commissioners. Nor would they be as 
valuable to precinct officials on election day as accurate, 
printed lists would be, if the latter were supplemented by 
the original registrations of the voters, each on a sep¬ 
arate card or sheet properly bound and indexed. 

Where a complete new registration is required period¬ 
ically, the difficulties involved in the use of books are not 
so great, provided direct entries therein are attempted 
only at the time of the general registration. For inter¬ 
mediate registrations data should be first entered on 
cards and then transferred to the books by clerks. Even 
this plan will not work where the signature of the voter 
is required on the register. 

Perhaps the most serious practical defect of the cen¬ 
tral registration act of 1917 was that, when five or more 
precincts were combined in a registration district, all 
the registers of each precinct were sent to the district 
place of registration. The judges and clerks were re¬ 
quired to locate as to his precinct each voter who sought 
to register and then to enter his name in each of the 
books for that precinct. This process, often handled by 
inexperienced and unskilled officials, resulted in much 
confusion and so many errors that the plan was gener¬ 
ally conceded to be impractical. 

The Bureau believes that the best method of register¬ 
ing voters is through the use of loose-leaf forms, each 
form to provide space for the entry of the information 
required by law concerning one voter. The form should 
be filled out in duplicate (by carbon process) by the reg¬ 
istrar and both copies should be signed by the voter. 
Such forms, when filled out and signed at outlying places 
of registration, would then be sent to the central office 
where both sets would be assembled and bound alpha- 


32 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

betically according to precincts. Registrations made at 
the central office would be assembled and bound in like 
manner. One set, or copy of the register, would then be 
retained permanently in the office of the Commissioners; 
the other would be sent to the respective polling places 
on election day. Both sets, as well as the printed lists 
hereafter mentioned, would be carefully revised prior to 
each election or primary. 

The voter should also be required to sign his name 
when he seeks to vote. This practice prevails in New 
York, Milwaukee and Omaha, where it is said the pro¬ 
cedure does not appreciably slow up the voting. The 
signature on election day might be taken on a separate 
slip of paper, as in Milwaukee, or in a book provided for 
that purpose, as in Omaha. As a general rule signatures 
are compared with those on the register only in case the 
person’s right to vote is questioned. The requirement 
that a voter sign his name before securing his ballot 
would have great deterrent effect on attempts at fraud 
by impersonation. Some persons will try verbally to im¬ 
personate others although they will hesitate to sign the 
name of some one else. 

Where an individual-form register of the type above 
proposed is used, precinct officials should be provided 
with accurate, printed lists of registered voters against 
which to check names, as they now check them against 
the book registers. Printed lists are preferable because 
in the end they are less expensive to prepare and when 
once accurately made they are less likely to contain er¬ 
rors resulting from subsequent revision. Names in 
printed lists would be set in linotype, the type to be 
owned by the city. Revision from time to time would in¬ 
volve merely the insertion of additional lines contain¬ 
ing new names and the withdrawal of lines containing 
names stricken from the register. When such changes 
had been made the revised lists could be printed in any 
quantity desired. On the other hand, completely to re- 


Proposed System of Registration 


33 


write or typewrite the entire list prior to each election 
and primary would involve unnecessary expense and 
much greater danger of error. 

Objection may be raised to the type of register above 
proposed on the ground that it would afford less security 
against error and fraudulent manipulation than do the 
present hooks. The Bureau believes that there need be 
no apprehension on this point. No method of registra¬ 
tion is entirely free from the possibility of error, but for 
ten years or more Milwaukee, Omaha, Portland and Los 
Angeles all have registered their voters on cards or in¬ 
dividual blanks and none of these cities reports any seri¬ 
ous embarrassments to voters because of errors in the 
registers. Detroit uses books, but the intermediate reg¬ 
istration at the city hall is conducted by the use of cards 
from which the information relating to each voter regis¬ 
tered on the card is transferred to the appropriate book. 
This plan was also used in Chicago during the short time 
that the central registration act of 1917 was in effect. 
Boston and Portland go even further than other cities 
in that they dispense altogether with the use of registers 
in the polling places on election day. The precinct offi¬ 
cials use only printed or typewritten lists and find this 
procedure entirely satisfactory. Accurate registers 
clearly are not dependent upon the use of books. 

Whether or not properly bound and locked, loose-leaf 
registers, supplemented by printed lists, are seriously 
liable to fraudulent manipulation presents a different 
question. The Bureau believes that they afford less op¬ 
portunity for political trickery and fraud than do the 
present books. 

Under the proposed plan there would be duplicate sets 
of forms, each of which would be bound separately by 
precincts; then there would be printed lists, also by pre¬ 
cincts. Of course it would be possible to destroy the 
forms containing the registration of one or of many 

» > i 


i j 


34 


Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


voters. However, in order to carry out any such fraud 
the work would have to be done in the central office. The 
binders sent to precinct officials would he locked, the 
printed lists would he complete, and any mutilation of 
the precinct register, of which there was a duplicate in 
the central office, would be too conspicuous to be suc¬ 
cessfully perpetrated. 

It would he absurd to assume that central office em¬ 
ployes and officials would indulge in the petty fraud of 
eliminating a name here and there in a list of 900,000 
voters. Nothing would be gained by such work. 
Fraud of this sort to be worth while even to political 
crooks must be conducted on a large scale. Fraud on a 
large scale in an office like that of the Election Commis¬ 
sioners involves collusion on the part of a number of 
employes and cannot be carried out without the conniv¬ 
ance of responsible officials. Under such circumstances, 
where responsibility for fraudulent acts can be quickly 
and definitely determined, they are not likely to occur. 

In contrast, consider the present situation. Registers 
are made and revised by precinct judges and clerks of 
election. Changes—whether proper or fraudulent—are 
made at the precinct polling places. Judges and clerks 
are subject to little effective supervision by the Elec¬ 
tion Commissioners. As a practical matter, precinct 
officials are chiefly responsible to the ward and precinct 
workers of the political organizations that are usually in¬ 
terested in the results of fraud when it is to be com¬ 
mitted. Under such circumstances it is comparatively 
easy for judges and clerks, through the use of fraudu¬ 
lent suspect notices or otherwise, to strike off the names 
of thousands of qualified voters, who then are unable to 
vote and entirely without redress on election day. All 
this can be done under the present system with little fear 
of detection or consequences. 



Proposed System of Registration 


35 


POLICE CANVASS OF VOTING LISTS RECOMMENDED 

There is much apprehension even under the present 
system about voting- lists being filled with names which 
are improperly thereon and which are often voted fraud¬ 
ulently. And fear is sometimes expressed that perma¬ 
nent registration would result in a worse condition in 
this respect. 

A thorough canvass of the lists prior to each election 
is necessary to insure honest voting under any system. 
If the canvassing is well done permanent registration 
will be safe. If the canvassing is not well done even a 
plan for a complete new registration prior to each pri¬ 
mary and election is not safe. The effectiveness of any 
registration system in preventing fraud is measured 
largely by the thoroughness and honesty with which the 
lists are canvassed. 

The plan for having the precinct clerks of election 
make the canvass in Chicago has completely broken 
down. The work is not done and it is not to be expected 
that it will be done under the conditions imposed. In 
Omaha the lists are checked by canvassers sent out from 
the office of the election commissioner. New York, Bos¬ 
ton, Detroit and Milwaukee all require the canvassing 
to be done and reports thereon to be made by the police 
department. In each of these cities the police canvass 
is generally said to be satisfactory. 

The police plan seems clearly to be the best. The Bu¬ 
reau recommends it for Chicago. One of the essential 
elements of an effective canvass is that it shall be made 
by a responsible person, who can afterward be located 
and called to account if the work is dishonestly or im¬ 
properly done. Police patrolmen have the requisite qual¬ 
ifications; they have a definite stake in their positions, 
which they want to keep and from which they can be re¬ 
moved for dishonesty or failure to perform their duty, 
whether in connection with canvassing voting lists or 


36 CJvicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

otherwise. No such degree of responsibility and intel¬ 
ligence as is found in the police could be expected from 
a large corps of temporary employes recruited by the 
Election Commissioners for a few days’ canvassing. 
Such employes could not be expected to be greatly con¬ 
cerned with their work and they would have little to fear 
if they performed it negligently or dishonestly. After 
the job was done they would disappear again in private 
life and many of them probably could not be found if 
wanted. 

Another thing to be considered in connection with can¬ 
vassing is the item of expense. The present perfunc¬ 
tory canvass costs about $20,000 for each election and 
each primary. To do a reasonably effective job through 
a corps of canvassers sent out by the Election Commis¬ 
sioners would probably cost $50,000 for each canvass, or 
at least $100,000 a year. This money could be largely 
saved through utilizing the police department. 

It may be suggested that such a canvass would impose 
an undue additional burden upon the police. That is not 
the experience of other cities where the plan is in effect. 
The general practice is for the patrolmen to do the can¬ 
vassing as an incident to their regular work. Police offi¬ 
cials of other cities when interviewed by a representa¬ 
tive of the Bureau did not complain of the work in¬ 
volved. Their specific statements showed that the can¬ 
vass could be readily made within a week’s time without 
interfering with other duties. Another advantage of 
having the patrolman do the work is that he thereby 
gains a valuable knowledge of conditions on his post, 
which can be utilized by him in other ways. 

Chicago has as many policemen in proportion to its 
population as any other large city in the country. Within 
the last year 1,000 patrolmen were added to the force at 
an annual expense of more than $2,000,000. If the in¬ 
creased police budget of the city is to be continued, it 
will be necessary either to curtail other expenditures or 


Proposed System of Registration 


37 


to increase taxes. The police themselves as a matter 
of self-interest should he willing to help economize on 
other expenditures wherever they can do so. 

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS BY ELECTION COMMISSIONERS 

The investigation of voting lists should not be left en¬ 
tirely to the police. The Election Commissioners should 
have authority to make such additional and supplemen¬ 
tal inquiries as might be found necessary to insure dili¬ 
gence on the part of the police and to keep the lists free 
of fraudulent names. For this purpose the Commis¬ 
sioners should be provided with a small, permanent force 
under the direction of a competent supervisory head. 
The work of such an organization should be continuous 
and the permanent employes should form the nucleus of 
a larger force that could be recruited from time to time 
if necessary. 


REVISION OF THE REGISTER 

Following the completion of each canvass a notice 
should be sent by mail from the central office to every 
person registered whose residence is questioned by the 
police report. Such persons should be given an oppor¬ 
tunity to appear at the city hall at any time prior to a 
fixed date, or at local registration places at a designated 
time, and to reaffirm their right to vote by making affi¬ 
davits before the registrars. Where such an affidavil 
was made, the Election Commissioners should make fur¬ 
ther investigation and, if not thereby satisfied as to a 
voter’s qualifications, should have the power, after prop¬ 
er further notice and hearing, either to strike the name 
off the list, or to direct the precinct election officials to 
challenge such voter on election day. 

SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES OF 

ELECTION 

The Bureau also directs attention to an unfortunate 
provision of the election law, which requires precinct 


38 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 

judges of election to be householders residing within the 
precinct. The clerks of election are also required to re¬ 
side within the precinct. 

In numerous precincts some or all of the judges and 
clerks are well qualified for the duties they are called 
upon to perform. There are precincts, however, in which 
it is difficult to secure qualified persons to serve as elec¬ 
tion officials, particularly in view of the requirement 
that judges must be householders. 

It is desirable that at least one precinct official be es¬ 
pecially competent. The present situation might be 
greatly improved if the Election Commissioners were 
authorized to appoint one member of any precinct board 
without regard to party affiliation or residence, except 
that he should be a voting resident of the city. The Com¬ 
mission should also be given authority, in its discretion, 
to designate such member as chairman of the local board. 

The provision requiring judges of election to be house¬ 
holders also leads to needless embarrassment and should 
be abolished. Frequently younger members of a family 
are better qualified to serve than the head. Married 
women living with their husbands are not householders, 
strictly speaking. The legality of such women serving 
as judges of election is open to question, although they 
are appointed and do serve in some cases. The law 
should be amended so as to permit the appointment of 
other than householders. 

The present situation might be further improved if 
the Election Commissioners were given express author¬ 
ity to send emergency assistance from the central office 
to those precincts especially needing help on election 
day, because of large size, inaptitude for the work on the 
part of regular judges and clerks, or various other condi¬ 
tions that frequently render capable assistance desirable 
on short notice. The Commissioners do in fact furnish 
such help to a limited extent even now but the legality 
of the practice is doubtful. It should be made certain. 


CALENDAR OF ELECTION EVENTS IN CHICAGO 
FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS* 


1919 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

City Primaries in February. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

City and Small Park District Elections in April. Election for 
choosing one superior court judge on same day. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in August. 

Primaries in September. (For nomination of delegates to con¬ 
stitutional convention.) 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in October. 

Election in November. (For choosing delegates to constitu¬ 
tional convention.) 

1920 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Elections in February. 

Supplemental Elections for Aldermen in April. (First Tuesday.) 
Elections in some parts of city on same day for choosing 
small park district commissioners. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in March before presiden¬ 
tial primaries. 

Presidential Primaries in April. (Second Tuesday.) 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in August. 

General Primaries in September. 

Two Registration Days, Canvass and Revision in October. 

General Election in November. 

1921 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Elections in February; also on same day city prim¬ 
aries for nomination of candidates for city clerk and city 
treasurer. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

City Election in April. (For choosing city clerk and city treas¬ 
urer.) Supplemental elections for aldermen on same day. 
Elections on same day also in some parts of city for choos¬ 
ing small park district commissioners. 

Judicial Election in June. (For choosing 20 circuit court judges 
and one superior court judge.) 

1922 Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

General Primaries in April. (Second Tuesday.) 

Judicial Election in June. (For choosing six superior court 
judges.) 

Two Registration Days, Canvass and Revision in October. 

General Election in November. 

Election December 12 on question of adopting proposed new 
constitution. 

♦This calendar is made up on the basis of the continued operation 

of the election laws as they now stand. 




Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 


40 

1923 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Elections in February; also, on same day, city pri¬ 
maries for nomination of candidates for mayor, city clerk 
and city treasurer, and elections in some parts of city for 
choosing small park district commissioners. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

City Election in April. (For choosing mayor, city clerk and 
city treasurer.) Supplemental elections for aldermen on 
same day. 

Judicial Election in November. (For choosing 12 superior court 
judges.) 

1924 Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

Presidential and General Primaries in April. (Second Tuesday.) 

Judicial Election in June. (For choosing one supreme court 
judge.) 

Two Registration Days, Canvass and Revision in October. 

General Election in November. 

1925 Registration, Canvass, and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Elections in February. Elections in some parts of 

city on same day for choosing small park district commis¬ 
sioners. 

Judicial Election in April. (For choosing one superior court 
judge.) Supplemental elections for aldermen on same day. 

1926 Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

General Primaries in April. (Second Tuesday.) 

Two Registration Days, Canvass and Revision in October. 

General Election in November. 

1927 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Elections in February; also, on same day, city 

primaries for nomination of candidates for mayor, city clerk 
and city treasurer, and elections in some parts of city for 
choosing small park district commissioners. 

Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

City Election in April. (For choosing mayor, city clerk and 
city treasurer.) Supplemental elections for aldermen on 
same day. 

Judicial Election in June. (For choosing 20 circuit court judges 
and one superior court judge.) 

1928 Registration, Canvass and Revision in March. 

Presidential and General Primaries in April. (Second Tuesday.) 

Judicial Election in June. (For choosing six superior court 
judges.) 

Two Registration Days, Canvass and Revision in October. 

General Election in November. 

1929 Registration, Canvass and Revision in February. 

Aldermanic Election in February. Elections in some parts of 

city on same day for choosing small park district commis¬ 
sioners. 

Supplemental Elections for aldermen in April. 

Judicial Election in November. (For choosing 12 superior court 
judges.) 


■’^^^ 9u 137 


PRIOR PUBLICATIONS. 

(Continued from inside front cover) 


24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 



34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

49. 


The Bond Issues to Be Voted Upon April 7, 1914. March 30, 1914. 

A Second Plea for Publicity in the Office of County Treasurer. July 9, 1914. 
Th \o£ e oF£rtotT l GoVeruments in Chicago. (Second Edition.) March, 1915. 
Unification of Local Governments in Chicago. January, 1917. 

The City Manager Plan for Chicago. October, 1917. 

The County Bond Issues to Be Voted Upon November 6, 1917. October 30, 1917. 

Absurdit^ S ««a d w le ^ tioU S»r DayS i as Holid »y»- An Instance of Governmental 
Absurdity and Waste. November 5, 1917. (Out of Print.) 

01,1 Civi’c*Orian"*atio ^ 1 ^?' llei \ ly s to « *>tter from City Officials Asking! 

latu?e tif wit *“ Urging a Special Session of the Legis¬ 

lature to Provide 1 In uncial Relief for the City. December, 1917. 

The Water Works System of the City of Chicago. December, 1917. 

“wS Acooml.H.S' C j™™ h 'im8 Waier Supp,y - The Neea ,0r , *- Whnt « 

KXC Mn\S,°^?M. T i*!r at T i0n * Why * he City of Chicago Should Have the Power, in 
fi b ] lc Improvements, to Take Property in Excess of Actual Require¬ 
ments. September, 1918. (Out of Print.) 

Chicago’s Special Need for a Constitutional Convention. October 21, 1918. 

Proposed Tax Increases for the City of Chicago, the Board of Education, and 
Cook County. June, 1919. (Out of Print.) 

Shall the City of Chicago Employ Permanently 1,000 Additional Policeman* 
September 5, 1919. 

Consolidation of Local Governments in Chicago. Draft of a Proposed Article 
V* e Constitution of the State of Illinois Providing for the Consolidation 
a U°cal Governments Having Jurisdiction Wholly or Partly Within the 
City of Chicago. Together with Explanatory Statement. January, 1920. 

The City Bond Issues To Be Voted Upon April 13, 1920. April 6, 1920. 

The High Cost of Elections in Chicago and Cook County. January, 1921. 

The City Bond Issue To Be Voted Upon February 22, 1921. February 15, 1021. 

The Jail Bond Issue To Be Voted Upon Monday, June 6, 1921. May 31, 1921. 

Proposed Increases in Revenue for the Chicago Schools. June 6, 1921, 

A Protest Against the Proposed New County Road Tax. April 1, 1922. 

Suggestions For Avoiding an Unnecessary Increase in School Taxes. April 4, 

A Second Protest Against the Proposed New County Road Tax. April 22, 1922, 

The City Bond Issues To Be Voted Upon June 5, 1922. June 1, 1922. 

The Proposed New Constitution for Illinois to be Voted Upon December 12, 1922. 
Text of Proposed Constitution with Explanatory Comments. Also text of 
Constitution of 1870 with Cross References. October, 1922. 

Shall The Proposed New Constitution be Adopted? Proposition to be Voted 
Upon at a Special Election, December 12, 1922. November, 1922. 















































